coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Maykop, the Republic of Adygeya.
6.  The applicant is a businessman. In 1996 he purchased a saw-mill with the intention of operating it as a going concern.
7.  In March 1998 the local authority ordered him to shut the saw-mill down because it was situated in the vicinity of sewage disposal installations and threatened the town's sanitation.
8.  The applicant brought proceedings against the Maykop municipal maintenance company (муниципальное жилищно-коммунальное хозяйство города Майкопа) and the Maykop municipal water supply company (муниципальное унитарное предприятие «Водоканал», hereinafter “the water supply company”), in which he sought an order requiring them to lift the ban on the operation of the saw-mill and damages.
9.  On 17 December 1999 the Maykop Town Court of the Republic of Adygeya ordered the water supply company not to prevent the applicant from carrying on his activity. The judgment was not appealed against and became final.
10.  However, it was not enforced. Instead, the water supply company blocked the road leading to the saw-mill and switched off the electricity supply.
11.  The applicant was not issued with a warrant of execution until 28 April 2002 pending a decision in another case in which a third party was trying to challenge his title to the saw-mill.
12.  On 14 May 2002 the enforcement proceedings were set in motion.
13.  Three months later the bailiff suspended the enforcement proceedings and applied for clarification of the judgment of 17 December 1999.
14.  On 29 October 2002 the Maykop Town Court held that the judgment of 17 December 1999 had to be enforced exactly as it was worded.
15.  On 8 January 2003 the bailiff brought the enforcement proceedings to an end. However, the access road remained blocked and the electricity supply was not restored.
16.  The applicant appealed against the decision to discontinue the enforcement proceedings.
17.  On 21 February 2003 the Maykop Town Court quashed that decision.
18.  On 25 March 2003 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Adygeya upheld the above judgment on appeal.
19.  On 13 January 2006 the enforcement proceedings were resumed.
20.  On 18 January 2006 the director of the water supply company issued access passes to the applicant and his nominees.
21.  On 19 January 2006 free access to the saw-mill was restored, and the obstacles preventing the applicant from using it were removed. He was invited to collect the passes, but failed to do so. When the bailiffs went to the applicant's home to serve him with papers concerning the enforcement, they were unable to find him, but were met instead by his father, who refused to look at the papers and explained that the applicant had moved to another city.
22.  On 26 January 2006 the enforcement proceedings were discontinued. The applicant did not appeal against that decision.
4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in the town of Yakutsk in the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic.
5.  On 4 October 2002 the Yakutsk Town Court ordered that the Yakutsk Town Council should provide the applicant with a well-equipped one-room flat. The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 19 October 2002.
6.  On 13 January 2003 the Yakutsk mayor's office took over the functions of the Town Council because the latter had ceased to exist as a legal entity.
7.  The applicant asked the Yakutsk Town Court to impose on the Yakutsk mayor's office the obligation to enforce the judgment of 4 October 2002. On 26 August 2003 the Yakutsk Town Court dismissed the request because she had not provided any evidence that the mayor's office was the successor to the Town Council. The applicant did not appeal against that judgment.
8.  On 10 October 2003 the Yakutsk Town Court dismissed the applicant's request for immediate enforcement of the judgment of 4 October 2002. The judgment was upheld on appeal on 17 November 2003.
9.  On 30 March 2004 the Yakutsk Town Court, upon the applicant's request, amended the judgment of 4 October 2002 and ordered that the Yakutsk mayor's office should enforce it.
10.  On 28 December 2004 the Yakutsk Town Court once again amended the judgment of 4 October 2002 and ordered that the Yakutsk mayor's office should pay the applicant 700,000 Russian roubles in lieu of the flat. The judgment was not appealed against and became final.
11.  On 7 April 2006 the Yakutsk mayor's office credited RUR 700,000 to the bailiffs' account. In June 2006 the bailiffs sent a letter to the applicant informing her about the transaction and asking to provide details of her bank account. According to the Government, the applicant did not respond. The bailiffs also attempted to personally serve the applicant with the letter, but she could not be found at her place of residence.
12.  On an unspecified date the bailiffs learned the details of the applicant's bank account and on 4 September 2006 they credited RUR 700,000 to it.
 B.  Proceedings concerning restoration of the heating supply
13.  In 1994 a housing maintenance company cut off the heating in the applicant's flat. The applicant sued the company seeking restoration of the heating supply and compensation for damage.
14.  On 8 December 1999 the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic, in the final instance, partly accepted the action. The maintenance company restored the heating.
15.  The judgment of 8 December 1999 was quashed by way of a supervisory review on 25 October 2001 and the case was remitted for a fresh examination.
16.  On 18 November 2002 the Yakutsk Town Court awarded the applicant RUR 1,845 in compensation. The judgment was upheld on appeal on 11 December 2002.
17.  The applicant sued the Yakutsk Town Council claiming compensation for damage caused to her flat due to the absence of the heating.
18.  On 28 August 2002 the Yakutsk Town Court dismissed the action because the municipal authorities had not been responsible for the damage. The judgment was upheld on appeal on 7 October 2002.
6.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Plovdiv.
7.  On 27 July 1993 the applicant, who was a taxi driver, hit a pedestrian with his car. The applicant brought the victim to the nearest hospital, where he died several days later despite the efforts of the medical doctors.
8.  On 4 August 1993 or 20 October 1993 the applicant was charged with involuntary manslaughter.
9.  On an unspecified date in the beginning of 1994, after the completion of the investigation, an indictment was submitted to the Plovdiv Regional Court. The relatives of the victim joined the proceedings as civil plaintiffs.
10.  After a hearing, on 18 March 1994 the court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to one year's imprisonment, suspended. The court also ordered the suspension of the applicant's driving licence for two years and ordered him to pay damages to the relatives of the victim.
11.  Upon the applicant's appeal, on 10 June 1994 the Supreme Court quashed the lower court's judgment and referred the case back for re‑examination at the investigation stage, instructing the competent authorities to commission a new expert report in order to clarify certain additional facts.
12.  The renewed investigation lasted until 5 December 1995 when a fresh indictment was submitted to the Plovdiv Regional Court.
13.  By judgment of 3 June 1997 the Regional Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to one year's imprisonment, suspended. The court also ordered the suspension of the applicant's driving licence for one year.
14.  On 10 June 1997 the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court of Cassation.
15.  On 14 November 1997 the Supreme Court of Cassation, acting as a court of appeal in a chamber of three judges, dismissed the appeal.
16.  On 6 May 1998 the applicant filed with the Plovdiv Regional Court a petition for review (cassation), which would have fallen to be examined by a five-member chamber of the Supreme Court of Cassation in the transitional period following the 1998 legislative amendments (see paragraph 20 below).
17.  On an unspecified date the Plovdiv Regional Court transmitted the petition and the case file to the Supreme Court of Cassation.
18.  On 24 March 1999 a judge of the Supreme Court of Cassation dismissed as time-barred the petition for review (cassation) and ordered the return of the case file back to the Regional Court. The order was made on a standard form which stated that the petition for review had been dismissed as time-barred, without mentioning any dates. The name of the judge who issued the order was not indicated.
4.  The applicants (see paragraph 1 above) were born in 1961, 1953, 1954, 1962, 1960, 1967, 1956, 1971 and 1965 respectively and live in Istanbul. Mecit Aygün was the chairman and the other applicants were the members of district administrative board of the Peoples' Democracy Party (Halkın Demokrasi Partisi, hereinafter “HADEP”) in Gaziosmanpaşa, a district of Istanbul.
5.  On 3 February 1998 police officers from the anti-terror branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate conducted a search at the Gaziosmanpaşa district office of the HADEP, where they found illegal publications.
6.  Subsequently, the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court initiated an investigation against the applicants.
7.  On 25 March 1998 the public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment charging the applicants with aiding and abetting the PKK under Article 169 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law no. 3713 alleging that the publications found in the HADEP district office contained articles supporting the activities of the PKK. He further issued a decision of non‑jurisdiction in respect of the charge concerning possession of illegal publications and referred the case to the Istanbul public prosecutor's office.
8.  At the hearing of 6 November 1998 the public prosecutor's submissions on the merits of the case were read out. The submissions of the public prosecutor were not served on the applicants.
9.  On the same day, the Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicants as charged and sentenced them to three years and nine months' imprisonment.
10.  On 10 November 1998 the applicants appealed against the judgment of 6 November 1998.
11.  On 18 October 1999 the public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation submitted his opinion on the merits of the applicants' appeal to the Court of Cassation. This opinion was not served on the applicants or their representative.
12.  On 6 March 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the first-instance court's judgment.
13.  On 23 March 2000 the applicants applied to the public prosecutor's office at the Court of Cassation requesting this office to bring the case before the Court of Cassation for rectification of decision. On 25 April 2000 their request was dismissed.
14.  Subsequent to their convictions, on an unspecified date, the applicants were detained.
15.  On 21 December 2000 Law No. 4616 on Conditional Release, Deferral of Procedure and Punishments was promulgated
16.  On different dates in February 2001, the Istanbul State Security Court ordered the applicants' conditional release pursuant to Law no. 4616.
17.  Meanwhile, on 5 July 2000 the Istanbul Magistrates' Court acquitted the applicants of the charge concerning possession of illegal publications.
4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Ankara. He was the deputy chairman of the pro-Kurdish HADEP (Halkın Demokrasi Partisi – People’s Democracy Party) prior to the events giving rise to the present application.
5.  On 21 July 1999 the applicant was taken into custody by police officers from the anti-terror branch of the Ankara Security Directorate. According to the arrest protocol (yakalama tutanağı) signed by four police officers and the applicant, a search warrant had been issued in respect of the applicant. When the officers saw the applicant, they asked him to show his identity card. The applicant however attempted to escape.
6.  On 23 July 1999 the deputy director of the Ankara Security Directorate sent a letter to the public prosecutor at the Ankara State Security Court requesting that the applicant’s custody period be extended. The deputy director maintained, inter alia, that the applicant had been taken into custody on 21 July 1999 during the course of a police operation carried out against the PKK and that the police had not yet completed the detailed questioning of the applicant and the gathering of evidence.
7.  The public prosecutor referred the security directorate’s request to the Ankara State Security Court. On the same day, the single judge of the State Security Court decided to extend the custody period for three days starting from 24 July 1999, including 26 July 1999. The applicant did not appear before the judge.
8.  On 25 July 1999 two police officers from the anti-terror branch of the Ankara Security Directorate took statements from the applicant. The applicant was questioned, in particular, about his statements made in several television programmes, broadcast on MED-TV, a pro-Kurdish channel, in which he had taken part in his capacity as deputy chairman of the HADEP.
9.  On 27 July 1999 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor at the Ankara State Security Court, who questioned him about his statements during the same television programmes. Subsequently, the public prosecutor requested the Ankara State Security Court to order the applicant’s detention on remand.
10.  On the same day, the single judge at the Ankara State Security Court ordered the applicant’s release from detention, having regard to the nature of the alleged offence and the state of the evidence.
11.  On 9 August 1999 the public prosecutor requested that the Ankara State Security Court file a bill of indictment, charging the applicant with aiding and abetting members of the PKK on account of his statements made during the television programmes shown on MED-TV.
12.  On 21 December 2000 new legislation (Law no. 4616) on the suspension of proceedings and the execution of sentences regarding offences committed before 23 April 1999 came into force.
13.  On 25 June 2002 the Ankara State Security Court decided to defer the imposition of a final sentence on the applicant, pursuant to Law no. 4616. The court held, under Article 1 § 4 of the same law, that the criminal proceedings against him would be suspended and a final sentence would be imposed should he be convicted of a similar offence within five years of this decision.
7.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Leksand.
8.  On 3 May 1993 the Tax Authority (skattemyndigheten) of the County of Dalarna decided to carry out a tax audit of KB Forward, a construction company owned by the applicant and his two brothers. As a result, value-added tax (mervärdeskatt) of more than 7 million Swedish kronor (SEK), including tax surcharges, was levied on the company.
9.  Unable to pay this sum, the company was declared bankrupt on 16 December 1993, at its own request.
10.  On 18 March 1994 the public prosecutor opened, on the basis of the findings of the tax audit, a preliminary investigation against the applicant.
11.  On 3 May 1999 the public prosecutor indicted the applicant for an aggravated bookkeeping offence (grovt bokföringsbrott) or, in the alternative, for having grossly impeded tax supervision (försvårande av skattekontroll, grovt brott).
12.  By a decision of 25 January 2000, the District Court rejected the applicant's request that the criminal case be dismissed on formal grounds. On 6 April 2000 the Svea Court of Appeal (Svea hovrätt) upheld the District Court's decision and on 18 May 2000 the Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen) refused leave to appeal.
13.  By a judgment of 28 March 2001, the District Court acquitted the applicant, whilst acknowledging that the proceedings had been excessively long.  On 18 April 2001, no appeal having been lodged, the District Court's judgment acquired legal force.
14.  On 20 April 2001 the applicant submitted a claim for pecuniary compensation to the Chancellor of Justice (Justitiekanslern), in which he maintained that the slow handling of his case had constituted a wrongful act or omission within the meaning of the Tort Liability Act (Skadeståndslagen, 1972:207) and that, thus, the Swedish State was liable to pay compensation.
15.  By a decision of 30 October 2003, the Chancellor of Justice rejected the applicant's claim, disagreeing with the District Court's view on the length of the proceedings.
4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Irkutsk.
5.  In October 1993 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of unlawful possession of weapons. On 14 March 1994 he was arrested and spent ten months and three days in custody until his release on a written undertaking not to leave the town.
6.  On 12 February 2001 the Irkutsk Regional Court acquitted the applicant. On 13 March 2002 the judgment became final.
7.  The applicant sued the Irkutsk Regional prosecutor's office and the Ministry of Finance for compensation for damage.
8.  On 7 October 2004 the Kirovskiy District Court of Irkutsk accepted the action and awarded the applicant 230,099.52 Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 6,415 euros) in compensation for damage and RUR 35,000 (approximately 976 euros) in costs for legal representation. The judgment was upheld on appeal and became final on 26 November 2004.
9.  On 5 April 2006 the sum of the judgment award was credited to the applicant's bank account.
4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Radom.
5.  On 4 February 1993 the applicant was charged with acting as a procurer of prostitution.
6.  On 15 October 1993 the Radom District Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against the applicant with the Radom District Court.
7.  The hearing set for 6 June 1994 was cancelled due to the applicant’s absence. Subsequently several hearings were cancelled. In particular, hearings scheduled for 4 July 1994, 22 September 1994, 3 November 1994 and 2 February 1995 were cancelled due to the absence of one of the co‑accused. Seven hearings scheduled between 21 July 1995 and 7 February 1996 were cancelled for various procedural reasons. On 18 July 1996 the court held a hearing.
8.  Between 20 February 1997 and 25 February 1999 the court held sixteen hearings at regular intervals of six weeks.
9.  On 23 September 1999, 5 October 1999 and 18 October 1999 the court held further hearings.
10.  On 25 October 1999 the Radom District Court gave judgment and convicted the applicant as charged. The court also sentenced the applicant to 1 year’s imprisonment stayed for 2 years.
11.  On an unknown later date the applicant appealed against this judgment.
12.  On 8 December 2000 the Radom Regional Court held a hearing and gave judgment. The court upheld the first‑instance sentence and dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Goleniów.
5.  The applicant was charged with attempted burglary. On 22 November 2000 the Myślibórz District Court convicted him as charged and sentenced him to 20 months’ imprisonment, taking into account that he was a habitual offender. The applicant appealed. On 6 April 2001 the Gorzów Wielkopolski Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.
6.  On 20 March 2002 the Myślibórz District Court again convicted the applicant of attempted burglary and sentenced him to 18 months’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed. On 8 July 2002 the Szczecin Regional Court upheld the District Court’s judgment, finding that the correctness of the conviction was borne out by the evidence before the trial court.
7.  On 26 September 2002 the applicant’s legal-aid counsel refused to file a cassation appeal in his case for lack of appropriate grounds. Throughout the proceedings, except for the retrial, the applicant was represented by a counsel.
8.  In October 2003 the applicant was arrested and charged with aiding and abetting the sale of stolen goods. He was remanded in custody from 7 October 2003 to 5 February 2004. On 19 March 2004 the Szczecin District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 18 months’ imprisonment. It took into account that the applicant was a habitual offender. The applicant appealed against the trial court’s judgment.
9.  On 13 August 2004 the Szczecin Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment. The applicant was represented by a counsel. It appears that he did not lodge a cassation appeal against the Regional Court’s judgment.
10.  The envelope in which the applicant’s letter dated 4 December 2003 was sent to the Court from the Szczecin Detention Centre bears two stamps that read: “censored” (ocenzurowano) and “Szczecin Detention Centre” (Areszt Śledczy, Szczecin). It appears that the envelope was cut open and subsequently resealed with adhesive tape.
5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Bataysk in the Rostov Region.
6.  In 2004 the applicant sued the Bataysk Town Administration for provision of housing. He had by this time for several years suffered from a grave form of infectious tuberculosis and was entitled to housing according to the relevant provisions of the domestic law.
7.  On 19 November 2004 the Batayskiy City Court allowed the applicant's claim and ordered the town administration:
“...to grant Mr. Sypchenko, whose family comprises five members, well-equipped housing according to the sanitary-technical requirements, with a living surface of no less than 70 square meters and a total surface of no less than 90 square meters”.
8.  On 9 February 2005 the judgment was upheld on appeal by the Rostov Regional Court, and entered into force. The decision was to be implemented by way of providing the applicant with an occupancy voucher (ордер на жилое помещение) from the local municipal authority. The voucher served as the legal basis for taking possession of the flat designated therein and for the signing of a tenancy agreement between the landlord, the tenant and the housing maintenance authority.
9.  On 9 March 2005 the enforcement proceedings were opened. However, the judgment could not be enforced because the town administration allegedly possessed no available housing of the indicated size or financial resources to purchase it.
10.  Following the Town Administration's request to review the case by way of supervisory review due to the impossibility to enforce it, on 28 March 2005 the Rostov Regional Court decided to obtain the case-file from the Batayskiy City Court and to stay the enforcement proceedings until its examination by way of supervisory review.
11.  On 17 June 2005 the Rostov Regional Court granted the request for supervisory review lodged by the Mayor of Bataysk and remitted the matter for examination on the merits to the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court.
12.  On 7 July 2005 the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court amended the judgment of 19 November 2004 as upheld on 9 February 2005. It found that the previous instances had misapplied certain provisions relating to the rules for calculating the living surface and thus awarded the applicant the maximum possible surface per person (12m² per person) instead of applying the minimum standard (9m² per person) without giving any reasons. The Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court ordered the Town Administration:
“...to grant [the applicant] ... housing... with the living space of no less than 45 square meters”.
13.  On 18 October 2005 the Mayor of Bataysk issued an order which granted the applicant a social tenancy voucher for a three room flat with a living surface of 50.5 square meters. The applicant contested the order in court, expressing general discontent with the flat. On 15 March 2006 the Rostov Regional Court in final instance dismissed the applicant's complaint.
14.  On 5 June 2005 the Batayskiy City Court obliged the applicant to sign the social tenancy agreement for the awarded flat. The applicant, however, refused to sign the agreement.